Rod Serling talks about Writing for Television (Part 2)

[Shatamx]

Perfect.

[RonBeam]

An artist IS the (original) audience; as such bearing a tremendous responsibility to form a piece that speaks to all of him/herself. If the work strikes a chord in this manner, it is logical that it will do so in those others whose values may be shaped - or have already been shaped - similarly. This is the expression of empathy, intrigal to art appreciation.

[futurestoryteller]

If art was made only for the artist he should shove it in a drawer and not speak of it again. J.D. Salinger would do this later in life, and while I don't feel it makes him any less of an artist, it doesn't make him any more of an artist either. It's somewhat complicated though, as I feel there would be no need to create art at all if it were not intended for exposure. Perhaps Salinger knew someone would likely read it after his death. No one bakes a pie and says 'Don't eat it, it's perfect'

[thechaz83]

I think if you give your very best in writing, art, etc; then something powerful emerges. The observer will either like it or not like it. You can't please everyone. I think what Rod is trying to say is to give it your best (that includes rewrites, opinions from other people, etc) but if you're only writing or painting just what others want (which is referred to as a hack) then that is deplorable. Rod means stay true to yourself but do your VERY best. Don't just slosh it on.

[cutis1000]

Art is indeed a shared experience. An excellent clip with Rod.

[EdMahoney19]

@ilsy74 It's a fact. He plagarized Charles Beaumont and admitted doing so. So, if "he" inspired you, I suggest you read Charles Beaumont.

[EdMahoney19]

That was some of the most worthless narratives about the art of writing I ever heard. He plagarized from Charles Beaumont, he didn't bleed at the typewriter.

[ilsy74]

@EdMahoney19 Serling is a humble man, truly trying to help those who wish to be creative and write. He is not trying to score points or boost his ego, through his knowledge of quotes, or "truths" quoted. He will live on forever.

[NightGallery]

@EdMahoney19 @EdMahoney19 Where is the evidence of Serling's alleged plagiarism? Give me one source that isn't hearsay. Serling was a prolific artist. In many ways one of the first truly postmodern writers. He occupies his own niche. He may have been a supreme and gifted adapter, but plagiarist? Hardly. Give the man his due. He was WAY ahead of his time, and I think he was a genius. BTW it was truly generous of him to do the collegiate work he performed in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

[EdMahoney19]

@NightGallery It's a fact he plagarized from Charles Beaumont and Richard Matheson and even admitted this in several published articles and interviews. For an alleged authority on Serling, it's surprising your not privy to these common known facts.

[NightGallery]

@EdMahoney19 

[NightGallery]

@EdMahoney19 Again, WHERE are these articles and interviews? Here's a link that gels with the majority of the universe: dot itkicks dot com/RodSerling Serling was accused, but was never convicted of nor admitted to plagiarism. His accusers were bitter (Bradbury) or on the verge of mental disintegration (Beaumont). Your accusations are reckless and hearsay IMHO. Are you also of the persuasion that believes the Apollo missions were smoke and mirrors? Sheesh.

[MrAnthonyVance]

@EdMahoney19 Hey, no talented, dumb, low-life Ed, you are moronic. And so is your silly air-head comment. Get lost, creep. We love Rod Serling and his genius.

[rachelsanders2]

@EdMahoney19 Wrong. It was actually an eloquent and probing take on writing.

[amey2312]

This could be off the mark but i cud not help but notice arrogance amongst the guys that are asking Serling the questions...i mean the manner in which they are smoking and sitting in general seems unusual and even amusing to me! Are they also as accomplished as the man they are interviewing or is it simply their belief that they are!!!

[IntuitSpirit]

To say that this man was a DEEP thinker is an understatement!

With MUCH respect to Churchill, Serling would have given him a run for his money!

Check out his AWESOME speech at Moorpark College, California on 12/3/68.

[ilsy74]

This is why I miss the art form known as the LP. Like a book release, it really was a shared art experience. The reaction would be just as important as the art itself. This tendency is dying in favor of digitzation, where each audience member can take in the art in their own time, shedding us of the experience of an art community.

[thechaz83]

@ilsy74 I think if you give your very best in writing, art, etc; then something powerful emerges. The observer will either like it or not like it. You can't please everyone. I think what Rod is trying to say is to give it your best (that includes rewrites, opinions from other people, etc) but if you're only writing or painting just what others want (which is referred to as a hack) then that is deplorable. Rod means stay true to yourself but do your VERY best. Don't just slosh it on.

[thechaz83]

@ilsy74 We'll there are still clubs I think, right? Maybe I'm wrong.

[mikedjmix]

This guys deep

[dnggitg]

I like the way Serling jokingly encourages Doris to participate. He seems to be aware than men are dominating the discussion. Feministic? Ahead of his time?

[dnggitg]

All writers care what other people think of their writing, and all writers want to write for themselves alone. They may compromise their vision--pander to the low-brow tastes of the hoi polloi--dumb it down for Des Moines, but if they had their druthers they'd write "just for dirty old Rod." Fortunately, a writer doesn't always have to reach out to a readership to gain its attention. As John Ashbery says, people tend to listen to you not when you speak to them, but when you speak to yourself.

[hermanzoon]

The thing is that we, the viewer, the listener, the "consumer" of art, confuse the experience we have with a work of art as being sympathetic with the same experience or reason why the artist created the work. That is not the case. There is a line between the audience and the artists that can never be crossed, no matter how much the artist wants to get his point across. So, artists really do only create works for their own sake. How the audience reacts is completely irrelevant to that.

[RemyFasolla]

Though the creator may put in all conscious, subconscious, and unconscious thought, psychology, sociology, and skill into the work, the artist is not the art nor is the art the artist, and once the art (painting, film, vase, whatever) is put out into the public, it takes on its own life, like a child. The reaction of the artist to the work itself becomes as irrelevent as the POV of the audience. The art has become the subject and we are all the objects in reaction. Ars longa, vita brevis!

[cinematedman]

Not bizarre when you consider the creation of art to be a selfish act. If you agree with that, then what he says makes sense. And if art is not a selfish act, then it is selfless, for the 'other'. There again, the other's acceptance is vital. So, either way, the reaction from the outside is part of it.

I think artists who say they don't care about reviews, criticisms, acceptance are not being wholly truthful. Just my opinion.

[saveourcar]

bizarre what rod says about art being so only if shared, the excellence of art depending upon an outside reaction, etc.